Does a State have the "right" to secede?

re:

by TheFirstLeftist

Jun. 23, 2012 8:47 am

Does a State have the "right" to secede? I put right in quotes because only humans have rights. Restated, is there anything illegitimate about a political entity seceding from a government that it no longer wants to be a part of?

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Lew Rockwell thinks the case can be used to skate. TX law and Texonomics brought us Enron, Worldcom, S&L, and suppression of EPA statutes if not downright disregard, so probably TX can do what it wants because it's TX. TX also brought us deregulation of commodities, brought us too big to fail, brought us the suppression of individual state's rights and constitutions.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by workingman

Jun. 23, 2012 10:12 am

States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Since the Constitution only lists powers granted to the Federal government and those specifically restricted to the States, I don't need to, Secession isn't mentioned in either case. It was understood at the Virginia ratifying convention that Virginia was voluntarily entering the Union and could voluntarily leave.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote workingman:States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by delete jan in iowa

Jun. 23, 2012 10:54 am

Quote TheFirstLeftist:

Does a State have the "right" to secede? I put right in quotes because only humans have rights. Restated, is there anything illegitimate about a political entity seceding from a government that it no longer wants to be a part of?

You've obviously started this thread with a purpose in mind. What is your opinion on this.... isn't that the reason you've started this so you can give us your opinion? So why don't you just say it and get it over with? I'm all ears.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by nimblecivet

Jun. 23, 2012 11:09 am

If a state secedes, the state it secedes from has a "right" to enforcement of contracts entered into by the seceding states citizens. The private property rights of the individuals within the seceding state are no longer guaranteed by the state from which they have been secedated. So much for your validation of existing property rights...

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

If a state secedes, the state it secedes from has a "right" to enforcement of contracts entered into by the seceding states citizens. The private property rights of the individuals within the seceding state are no longer guaranteed by the state from which they have been secedated. So much for your validation of existing property rights...

They are no less guaranteed that they were before the secession. The seceding state will now be under pressure to respect existing rights or part of that state can then secede from that state.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Does a State have the "right" to secede? I put right in quotes because only humans have rights. Restated, is there anything illegitimate about a political entity seceding from a government that it no longer wants to be a part of?

The United States was formed when 13 Colonies of the British Empire seceded. So, yes, I support the right to secession. A seceding state can still be abusive. But the more States, or competiting jurisdictions the better. What is your recourse is there was a totalitarian World Government? Your 1/6,000,000,000 voting power isn't going to get you too far.

Quote jan in iowa:

You've obviously started this thread with a purpose in mind. What is your opinion on this.... isn't that the reason you've started this so you can give us your opinion? So why don't you just say it and get it over with? I'm all ears.

September, 1981--Federal Home Loan Bank Board permits troubled S&Ls to issue "income capital certificates" that are purchased by FSLIC and included as capital. Rather than showing that an institution is insolvent, the certificates make it appear solvent.

1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year. The average examiner has only two years on the job. Examiner salaries are paid through OMB, not the Bank Board. During this period of supervisory and examination retraction, industry growth increases. Industry assets increase by 56% between 1982 and 1985. 40 Texas S&Ls triple in size between 1982 and 1986; many of them grow by 100% each year. California S&Ls follow a similar pattern.

CA followed

One of Reagan's dereg moves was to stomp the individual states laws prohibiting securitzation of mortgages from S&Ls. Allowing S&Ls to gamble with depositors fdic insured accounts was in their, too.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote TheFirstLeftist:Does a State have the "right" to secede? I put right in quotes because only humans have rights. Restated, is there anything illegitimate about a political entity seceding from a government that it no longer wants to be a part of?

Quote janiniowa:You've obviously started this thread with a purpose in mind. What is your opinion on this.... isn't that the reason you've started this so you can give us your opinion? So why don't you just say it and get it over with? I'm all ears.

Quote TheFirstLeftist:The United States was formed when 13 Colonies of the British Empire seceded. So, yes, I support the right to secession. A seceding state can still be abusive. But the more States, or competiting jurisdictions the better. What is your recourse is there was a totalitarian World Government? Your 1/6,000,000,000 voting power isn't going to get you too far.

That's interesting you believe in states' rights. What libertarian doesn't? You have an opinion..... great.

September, 1981--Federal Home Loan Bank Board permits troubled S&Ls to issue "income capital certificates" that are purchased by FSLIC and included as capital. Rather than showing that an institution is insolvent, the certificates make it appear solvent.

1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year. The average examiner has only two years on the job. Examiner salaries are paid through OMB, not the Bank Board. During this period of supervisory and examination retraction, industry growth increases. Industry assets increase by 56% between 1982 and 1985. 40 Texas S&Ls triple in size between 1982 and 1986; many of them grow by 100% each year. California S&Ls follow a similar pattern.

CA followed

One of Reagan's dereg moves was to stomp the individual states laws prohibiting securitzation of mortgages from S&Ls. Allowing S&Ls to gamble with depositors fdic insured accounts was in their, too.

From economist William Anderson,

"For instance, the first real, sweeping legislation toward banking and financial "deregulation" was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA), which was passed by a Congress dominated by the Democratic Party and signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Now, unless I am mistaken, Carter and the Democrats of that time were not exactly ideological Reaganites, but none of that matters to Krugman and his followers. The idea is that if they repeat the mantra enough times, it will come true."

"To make matters worse, interest rates were rising (the prime rate ultimately reached 21.5 percent in 1982) and banks and savings-and-loans institutions were constrained from allowing market rates on their savings accounts by Regulation Q. (Interestingly, the New York Times itself editorialized in favor of eliminating Regulation Q, and it was the Democrats that did away with it, not conservative Republicans or Ronald Reagan.)"

"Second, many of the early advocates for deregulation came from the so-called "liberal" side of the Democratic Party. Ted Kennedy sponsored airline deregulation in 1978, and Alfred Kahn, Jimmy Carter's economic advisor and his "Inflation Czar," was the architect for many of the deregulation initiatives. In fact, Ronald Reagan received an endorsement from the Teamsters union in 1980 after he agreed to delay trucking deregulation for two years."

Deposit Insurance was also increased, creating a further moral hazard. Hardly deregulation. Sitting atop the whole banking system is the Fed, which is not a market institution. Then there's the case of Michael Milken,

"Contrary to what Krugman or others might think, Milken was not a product of financial deregulation; he operated outside the banking sector. Furthermore, his investments were not "protected" by the moral hazard of deposit insurance or any implicit guarantee that the Federal Reserve System would "bail out" Drexel if it made bad economic choices."

"I bring out the Milken situation because the so-called ideological "deregulators" that Krugman claims turned Wall Street into a chaotic, "free-market" free-for-all actually supported action against Milken. The notion that David Rockefeller is an apostle for free markets might play well in the New York Times, but it does not square with the facts."

I apologize for the extensive quoting but I can't improve on Professor Anderson's writing. This whole narrative of deregulation in the 80's doesn't square with the facts.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote workingman:States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

Are you saying no because the South lost?

I am saying that lincoln forced the south back into the country through war, which sets a precidence that if another state tries to leave the feds can come and force them to cone back.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Maybe CA too. It was home to the S & L scandals in the 80's and the subprime mortage fraud in the 90's and 2000s.

No cigar. The biggest perp in those scandals, regardless of where the outlets were, was George W. Bush's little brother, Neil, who should have gone to prison for his role in Silverado, but who didn't go to jail because, as old rock song says, "You can rely on the old man's money, you can rely on the old man's money...," and that greasy little bastard was a TEXAN, just like the rest of his scumbag family.

They used to be "downeasters," from Maine, but they made their money in oil, so they moved to TEXASS to be closer to it.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

I apologize for the extensive quoting but I can't improve on Professor Anderson's writing. This whole narrative of deregulation in the 80's doesn't square with the facts.

While the first sentence may be true for you, your second assertion is wide open to question. Define "whole narrative". I was there. I was an independent strategic planning consultant for corporations like the Sears Financial Services and a number of mortgage banking and insurance corporations who began drooling over the prospects for new kinds of business and profits potential after the Reagan signed The Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. I helped analyze the implications of the legislation, especially the potential to open cross state investment and merger concepts, and I helped strategically design proposals that would take the new lack of regulations into account. Some of it had to do with the creation of franchises, another legal nightmare any strategic planner has to negotiate. Very little of it had anything to do with the 1980 Act of banking deregulations. But, there's no question that in the corporate boardrooms where I was a witness, these banking institutions began putting pressure on congress to continue deregulating.

Though DIDMCA did eventually open the door to some predatory lending in low-income communities, McCoy thinks that, on balance, the 1980 legislation was valuable in the way it deregulated the mortgage market and made home loans more available. It is AMTPA, the 1982 law, that McCoy sees as most problematic.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote workingman:States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

Are you saying no because the South lost?

I am saying that lincoln forced the south back into the country through war, which sets a precidence that if another state tries to leave the feds can come and force them to cone back.

Believe me, if there was a practical way to give all of you humanoids a state, or even a number of states, and let you live in them together, so that we could require passports for you to travel to the states where human beings live, I'd be delighted to do it. Unfortunately, there's no way to geographically isolate you so that you can spend all day greeting each other by mutually smelling your butts, like the dogs that you are.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote TheFirstLeftist:Does a State have the "right" to secede? I put right in quotes because only humans have rights. Restated, is there anything illegitimate about a political entity seceding from a government that it no longer wants to be a part of?

Quote janiniowa:You've obviously started this thread with a purpose in mind. What is your opinion on this.... isn't that the reason you've started this so you can give us your opinion? So why don't you just say it and get it over with? I'm all ears.

Quote TheFirstLeftist:The United States was formed when 13 Colonies of the British Empire seceded. So, yes, I support the right to secession. A seceding state can still be abusive. But the more States, or competiting jurisdictions the better. What is your recourse is there was a totalitarian World Government? Your 1/6,000,000,000 voting power isn't going to get you too far.

That's interesting you believe in states' rights. What libertarian doesn't? You have an opinion..... great.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Since the Constitution only lists powers granted to the Federal government and those specifically restricted to the States, I don't need to, Secession isn't mentioned in either case. It was understood at the Virginia ratifying convention that Virginia was voluntarily entering the Union and could voluntarily leave.

Either way, that's bullshit. It's the persistent rightwing rationale for wanting to say that anything not specifically defined as illegal in the Constitution can be done by business and rightwing politicians, thus removing any and all restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

The Achilles Heel of this stupid approach is that it never takes common sense into consideration and it never allows for the fact that the Constitution was penned over 200 years ago, so that what always applied then does not always apply now, for obvious reasons. Nor does it allow for the even more basic fact that it's humanly impossible to foresee and list all instances of what can and cannot be legally done.That's why all courts have to examine what they believe was the Founders' intent when developing law on any given issue or question. There are myriad other reasons "strict constructionism" is stupid, but those are two of the most basic.

Bet you didn't think anybody would see that's where you were going with this drek, did you?

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Secession could and should be seen as an act of agression against the union of The United States. An act of agression against the U.S. could and should result in war.

If you are a supporter of secession then I ask are you a supporter of State wars? Can South Carolina go to war with North Carolina over natural resources without intervention from the Federal Government? I believe that any actions by a State government that may hurt or endanger the union of all States should be deemed illegal and the Federal government given the power to imprison that State's leadership. No State is better than the combined "union" of States that make up the U.S.

If one State such as Texas were to secede from the union then it would be seen as a weakening of the nation and therefore an attack on the U.S.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by Phaedrus76

Jun. 23, 2012 2:50 pm

The right to secede may have been realistic, although at the time of the founding of our nation they referred to what they were setting up as a "perpetual union", and perpetual means never ending., The pro secession crowd may had a legal leg to stand on, up until the point when the filthy rebels in South Carolina fired on American sailors bringing supplies to Ft. Sumter. At which point, it became an armed rebellion, good job South Carolina.

The idea of a libertarian paradise is great. Go to Somalia. There is your libertarian, no regulation nirvana; no onerous fedrule gubmint sending out jack booted thugs to enforce laws and no health inspectors.

Here in the US, where we operate within the rule of law, we have recognized that where there are competing interests, we must govern to stop one group from abusing, enslaving, or terrorizing others.

Whenever a Libertarian FreeMarketeer TruePatriot has to choose between making money today and causing someone else's kid to die a painful death from salmonella, they will commit murder every last time, because that death is an external cost. Why the hell would the Libertarian FreeMarketeer TruePatriot care if he kills other peoples' children? They never have before, and they never will in the future.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by doh1304

Jun. 23, 2012 3:05 pm

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

How about instead of reenacting the Civil War and flinging insults we try something else: Does the US government of 2012 meet the standard of the Declaration, and as a corollary, who does or does not have the standing (morally) to make such a declaration?

Historically, I know of three states that have considered it (not counting the Confederacy - I mean in my lifetime) Alaska (I do not know how seriously) Texas (on right wing principles - for example Texan farmers openly complain that the federal government prevents them from taking Nebraska's water) and California (the issue rises whenever the feds declare primacy to weaken California environmental laws)

I don't have the stomach to talk about Texas' desire to officially proclaim itself a fascist kleptocracy, but the California case interests me. Has the federal government become corrupt enough to justify secession? There have been polls, and Californians said no, but that was some time ago (before the Bush interregnum) As I remember there was a significant minority however.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote workingman:States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

Are you saying no because the South lost?

I am saying that lincoln forced the south back into the country through war, which sets a precidence that if another state tries to leave the feds can come and force them to cone back.

Believe me, if there was a practical way to give all of you humanoids a state, or even a number of states, and let you live in them together, so that we could require passports for you to travel to the states where human beings live, I'd be delighted to do it. Unfortunately, there's no way to geographically isolate you so that you can spend all day greeting each other by mutually smelling your butts, like the dogs that you are.

with 49 percent of the population not paying federal taxes how are you going to run your country with all the conservative tax payers no longer in the country? As much as you hate conservatives you need them way more than we need you.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by chilidog

Jun. 24, 2012 5:52 am

So what was Jefferson Davis' settlement offer to Lincoln?

"Several forts in Confederate territory remained in Union hands. Davis sent a commission to Washington with an offer to pay for any federal property on Southern soil, as well as the Southern portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused. Informal discussions did take place with Secretary of State William Seward through Supreme Court JusticeJohn A. Campbell, an Alabamian who had not yet resigned; Seward hinted that Fort Sumter would be evacuated, but nothing definite was said.[54"

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

That's not how it works. The constitution places limits on the feds. If the constitution does not prohibit secession then a state should be free to leave. That said it's a mute point because no state is trying to seceed.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

That's not how it works. The constitution places limits on the feds. If the constitution does not prohibit secession then a state should be free to leave. That said it's a mute point because no state is trying to seceed.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

This issue has been addressed ad nauseum, but here I go again: out of the 49 who "pay no income taxes" 14 pay FICA (this means they make between $3000 an $6000 a year) and 18 live entirely on Social Security (meaning that they paid their taxes - and fyi, the maximum SS benefit is $23,000) oh, and 2 are in prison. 49 - 14 - 18 - 2 = 15%. Now assume that for every person on unemployment (unemployment compensation is taxable, so they are part of the 51% who do pay taxes) there is a person who no longer works because he can not find a job. 15% -8 = 7% who pay no taxes without any excuse. How many of those are taxi drivers, bartenders, etc, and how many are trust fund babies?

And another fyi - whether you count geographically or demographically or through polling - conservatives consume more in government services than they pay in taxes.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Secession could and should be seen as an act of agression against the union of The United States. An act of agression against the U.S. could and should result in war.

If you are a supporter of secession then I ask are you a supporter of State wars? Can South Carolina go to war with North Carolina over natural resources without intervention from the Federal Government? I believe that any actions by a State government that may hurt or endanger the union of all States should be deemed illegal and the Federal government given the power to imprison that State's leadership. No State is better than the combined "union" of States that make up the U.S.

If one State such as Texas were to secede from the union then it would be seen as a weakening of the nation and therefore an attack on the U.S.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

That's not how it works. The constitution places limits on the feds. If the constitution does not prohibit secession then a state should be free to leave. That said it's a mute point because no state is trying to seceed.

Except it was a perpetual union.

Once again, the Constitution is NOT a contract, wherein people can claim they can do anything they want that isn't expressly and specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The Founders set it up in both the overt and tacit expectations that future generations would use common sense in interpreting it. They did not set it up with an eye toward future generations seceding.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote workingman:States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

Are you saying no because the South lost?

I am saying that lincoln forced the south back into the country through war, which sets a precidence that if another state tries to leave the feds can come and force them to cone back.

Believe me, if there was a practical way to give all of you humanoids a state, or even a number of states, and let you live in them together, so that we could require passports for you to travel to the states where human beings live, I'd be delighted to do it. Unfortunately, there's no way to geographically isolate you so that you can spend all day greeting each other by mutually smelling your butts, like the dogs that you are.

with 49 percent of the population not paying federal taxes how are you going to run your country with all the conservative tax payers no longer in the country? As much as you hate conservatives you need them way more than we need you.

Total bullshit, proving once again that you're the uneducated ignoramus you've always revealed yourself to be. I'm not even going to argue with you, because you've immunized yourself to facts and reason, like most trolls. Blow it out your ass!

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

[quote]Historically, I know of three states that have considered it (not counting the Confederacy - I mean in my lifetime) Alaska (I do not know how seriously) Texas (on right wing principles - for example Texan farmers openly complain that the federal government prevents them from taking Nebraska's water) and California (the issue rises whenever the feds declare primacy to weaken California environmental laws)

I don't have the stomach to talk about Texas' desire to officially proclaim itself a fascist kleptocracy, but the California case interests me. Has the federal government become corrupt enough to justify secession? There have been polls, and Californians said no, but that was some time ago (before the Bush interregnum) As I remember there was a significant minority however.

Interesting. This brings to mind some other stuff to think about regarding taxes, Texas, and California. One of the main reasons that California's overall quality of life has gone down the shitter was Prop 13, courtesy of Howard Jarvis. All right, Californians passed it, but the hypocrisy of large numbers who voted for it is monumental, as is their gall when they speak proudly of having done so. Prop 13 is why California is now bankrupt.

What angers me the most about it is that being a lifelong Washingtonian, I've seen millions of the same dumb bastards who proudly voted for Prop 13 use I-5 as a ratline to run up and relocate here after their own stupidity bankrupted California via passage of Prop 13. They made the mess down there and now they don't want to live the results of their own goddam stupidity, so they just leave after destroying the quality of life, which they're then hypocritical enough to bemoan. If it were up to me, I'd deport every last one of them back to California and make them live with their own mistakes. Too bad Washington and Oregon don't restrict immigration of Californians.

Several years ago, I had business in Denver. It turns out lots of lifelong Coloradans feel the same way about hordes of halfwits moving up there from Texas, after supporting rightwing nonsense in that wasteland and not wanting to live with their mistakes either. Lots of Colorandans feel the same way about Texans as lots of us feel about Californians.

Pandemic hypocrisy coupled with monumental gall will never be palatable -- or go unchallenged.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote workingman:States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

Are you saying no because the South lost?

I am saying that lincoln forced the south back into the country through war, which sets a precidence that if another state tries to leave the feds can come and force them to cone back.

Believe me, if there was a practical way to give all of you humanoids a state, or even a number of states, and let you live in them together, so that we could require passports for you to travel to the states where human beings live, I'd be delighted to do it. Unfortunately, there's no way to geographically isolate you so that you can spend all day greeting each other by mutually smelling your butts, like the dogs that you are.

with 49 percent of the population not paying federal taxes how are you going to run your country with all the conservative tax payers no longer in the country? As much as you hate conservatives you need them way more than we need you.

Most people in our country will pay their taxes because they're not rich tax-dodgers and the blue part of the U.S. is already the productive part of the country, outproducing the red states in almost all areas, as well as possessing a better educated populace and most of the high-tech and what's left of industry.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Quote workingman:States had a right to leave the union all the way up until lincoln and the civil war. Up until then the states were in a union with the other states free to end the agreement when they felt like it was necessary. After lincoln states rights were effectively non existent.

Are you saying no because the South lost?

I am saying that lincoln forced the south back into the country through war, which sets a precidence that if another state tries to leave the feds can come and force them to cone back.

Believe me, if there was a practical way to give all of you humanoids a state, or even a number of states, and let you live in them together, so that we could require passports for you to travel to the states where human beings live, I'd be delighted to do it. Unfortunately, there's no way to geographically isolate you so that you can spend all day greeting each other by mutually smelling your butts, like the dogs that you are.

with 49 percent of the population not paying federal taxes how are you going to run your country with all the conservative tax payers no longer in the country? As much as you hate conservatives you need them way more than we need you.

Most people in our country will pay their taxes because they're not rich tax-dodgers and the blue part of the U.S. is already the productive part of the country, outproducing the red states in almost all areas, as well as possessing a better educated populace and most of the high-tech and what's left of industry.

Go pick some cotton, Bubba.

All of the blue states are broke, Ca. Is 40 billion in the hole so i am guessing those tax paying liberals are not paying their taxes. if the conservatives were allowed to livd without the economic slavery created by thr left they would be far better off.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

It's not slavery if "We the People" vote on it. As long as there is Democracy, the government can do anything it wants. Because we are the government. If the Congress, President and the Supreme Court agree that a law is Constitutional, then it is Constitutional.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by camaroman

Jun. 25, 2012 12:07 pm

When is the last time all 3 branches of our dysfunctional federal governemnt agreed on anything?

This from de Tocqueville writing about the tyranny of the majority :In the United States, political questions cannot be taken up in so general and absolute a manner; and all parties are willing to recognize the rights of the majority, because they all hope at some time to be able to exercise them to their own advantage. The majority in that country, therefore, exercise a prodigious actual authority, and a power of opinion which is nearly as great; no obstacles exist which can impede or even retard its progress, so as to make it heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state of things is harmful in itself and dangerous for the future.

Jefferson also said: "The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period."

The man was a true visionary. How true his prediction of the tyranny of the executive branch. Look what we got now, thanks to a majority of nitwits!!!

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

It's not slavery if "We the People" vote on it. As long as there is Democracy, the government can do anything it wants. Because we are the government. If the Congress, President and the Supreme Court agree that a law is Constitutional, then it is Constitutional.

That is the exact thinking that is slowly turning the u.s. Into a dictatorship.

For one we the people do not vote to create the laws, we vote for representitives who then have closed door meetings. Saying unbelievible stuff like we need to pass this law to see what is in it..

In order to be cobstitutional it has to be in Direct support of the 18 assigned jobs listed in the constitution if it is not, if the supreme court upholds it or not does not make it constitutional. It does however make it law, even if it make 50 percent of the population slaves.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by drc2

Jun. 25, 2012 4:54 pm

To make this point really clear, why is it that the Blue States send more money to DC than they get back while the opposite is true of the Red States who complain about Liberals wanting to use other people's money to do stuff?

How "indivisible" we are has more to do with big historical questions than with the pissed off few in the woods. The "right" to secede is not quite the same as the right to resist unjust authority. To declare independence and to announce "secession" instead of negotiating a divorce is to incur the wrath of the former state until you prove you can make your assertions stick. How ready are the secessionists to back up their 'treason?'

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

It's not slavery if "We the People" vote on it. As long as there is Democracy, the government can do anything it wants. Because we are the government. If the Congress, President and the Supreme Court agree that a law is Constitutional, then it is Constitutional.

That is the exact thinking that is slowly turning the u.s. Into a dictatorship. For one we the people do not vote to create the laws, we vote for representitives who then have closed door meetings. Saying unbelievible stuff like we need to pass this law to see what is in it.. In order to be cobstitutional it has to be in Direct support of the 18 assigned jobs listed in the constitution if it is not, if the supreme court upholds it or not does not make it constitutional. It does however make it law, even if it make 50 percent of the population slaves.

Sorry I was being sarcastic. Progressives seem to think that an immoral act can be turned into a moral one by voting. Saying someone is against "Democracy" is supposed to shut down all debate. Well, I'm against "Democracy". Insofar as we have "representatives", I am not opposed to them being chosen by a democratic process, i.e. popular voting. But a "Democracy" and a "Republic" are two different things.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

To make this point really clear, why is it that the Blue States send more money to DC than they get back while the opposite is true of the Red States who complain about Liberals wanting to use other people's money to do stuff?

How "indivisible" we are has more to do with big historical questions than with the pissed off few in the woods. The "right" to secede is not quite the same as the right to resist unjust authority. To declare independence and to announce "secession" instead of negotiating a divorce is to incur the wrath of the former state until you prove you can make your assertions stick. How ready are the secessionists to back up their 'treason?'

I agree with you here 100%. It ridiculous that some states, probably mostly "blue" states send more money to Washington than they get back. It's impossible for everyone to get back exactly what they send. There will always be States that are net taxpayers and some that are next tax consumers. And of course, it is the height of hyprocrisy for supposedly anti-gov't States electing politicians in bring back more than the State sends in taxes. I'm sure there are a few philosophically consistent conservatives in the "Red" States that oppose the whole process but your typical mainline Fox-news watching Republican has no problem with the process.

My solution is simple. Let every State keep all of its money and only send in its apportioned amount to run a tiny Defense Dept., some Federal courts, and a couple other things.

It is foolish to think that taking money from one State, sending it to Washington, having Washington take a cut, and send the rest back to the several States, is going to make for properity.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

To make this point really clear, why is it that the Blue States send more money to DC than they get back while the opposite is true of the Red States who complain about Liberals wanting to use other people's money to do stuff?

How "indivisible" we are has more to do with big historical questions than with the pissed off few in the woods. The "right" to secede is not quite the same as the right to resist unjust authority. To declare independence and to announce "secession" instead of negotiating a divorce is to incur the wrath of the former state until you prove you can make your assertions stick. How ready are the secessionists to back up their 'treason?'

I agree with you here 100%. It ridiculous that some states, probably mostly "blue" states send more money to Washington than they get back. It's impossible for everyone to get back exactly what they send. There will always be States that are net taxpayers and some that are next tax consumers. And of course, it is the height of hyprocrisy for supposedly anti-gov't States electing politicians in bring back more than the State sends in taxes. I'm sure there are a few philosophically consistent conservatives in the "Red" States that oppose the whole process but your typical mainline Fox-news watching Republican has no problem with the process.

My solution is simple. Let every State keep all of its money and only send in its apportioned amount to run a tiny Defense Dept., some Federal courts, and a couple other things.

It is foolish to think that taking money from one State, sending it to Washington, having Washington take a cut, and send the rest back to the several States, is going to make for properity.

The fact that the blue states put in more than they get back has more to do with population of thr state than anything else. The blue states are more densely populated than the red states. The higher population pays in more but receive back higher amounts of welfare than the red states. Were the red states are less populated pay in less but get more back for roads.

I do agree that we need to cut the federal government in size by 95 percent. Leaving only defense, federal courts And a few minor other things.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

This issue has been addressed ad nauseum, but here I go again: out of the 49 who "pay no income taxes" 14 pay FICA (this means they make between $3000 an $6000 a year) and 18 live entirely on Social Security (meaning that they paid their taxes - and fyi, the maximum SS benefit is $23,000) oh, and 2 are in prison. 49 - 14 - 18 - 2 = 15%. Now assume that for every person on unemployment (unemployment compensation is taxable, so they are part of the 51% who do pay taxes) there is a person who no longer works because he can not find a job. 15% -8 = 7% who pay no taxes without any excuse. How many of those are taxi drivers, bartenders, etc, and how many are trust fund babies?

And another fyi - whether you count geographically or demographically or through polling - conservatives consume more in government services than they pay in taxes.

Another percentage to add to those who don't pay taxes are hedge fund managers. They don't pay income or fica, or cap gains taxes. They are allowed to 'borrow' from their funds all the living expenses they want, and we're talking millions. When they sell they pay cap gains, but they don't have to sell when they can borrow. The debt they owe to their funds doesn't have to be paid back unless everyone wants to cash out, like the Madof marks. Some fund managers prevent cashing out, and they're allowed to do so. Assets are frozen to prevent volatility according to one manager on a big losing streak.

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

by Kerry

Jun. 26, 2012 8:30 am

Well, while you wouldn't think that anything else other than 'individuals' would have rights in a democracy supposedly set up to secure and guarantee them like ours (may) once had been, as the U.S. Constitution does imply, there are distinctions to be made between what is in the authority of the state to implement vs. the federal government. The post-Civil War era supposedly settled the problem with 'state's rights claim over individual rights' by claiming 'national citizenship with federal authority', but, once again, as Thom Hartmann so aptly pointed out in his book, Unequal Protection, that 'national citizenship with federal authority' has been taken hostage by the instilling of the artificial entity as corporations in having 'personhood rights'. It's latest 'state victim' is the recent Supreme Court decision against Montana's century old law (made at the end of the First Gilded Age) restraining corporate involvement in political funding in favor of, once again, Citizen's United's claim that corporations have 'rights' to 'free speech' (and 'money' is how 'they talk').

So, the point of the issue is that it is NOT just 'individuals' that gain rights in this government--even as individuals are supposed to be the ones that the Declaration of Independence 'secures and guarantees' those rights for--even as the definition of 'individual rights' has been extended to both genders and all races. And, while the 14th Amendment did give the federal government the authority to supersede any state's ability to interfere with the rights of its 'national citizens' as 'individuals', the premises of such 'rights' have been used more in the courts to have the federal authority to protect corporate interests (as if protecting 'personhood rights'). The Supreme Court did that in the First Gilded Age by knocking down all the state laws that favored worker benefits in claiming the un-Constitutionality of government 'interfering with contracts'--and the present Supreme Court in what I see as the Second Gilded Age is, once again, using federal authority more to protect the corporate 'freedom' to influence elections with their 'speech' of 'money' even if that is against one state's century old law against it (from the First Gilded Age).

With that decision against Montana's law, the 'circle' between the two Gilded Ages is now complete as the judiciary branch closes all semblances of states acting against corporations for the interest of its own citizens as if the corporations' right for 'federal authority protection' just as it were a 'national citizen' with 'personhood rights' would indicate.....and, so, how could any 'state' retaliate against that, right?

re: Does a State have the "right" to secede?

Well, while you wouldn't think that anything else other than 'individuals' would have rights in a democracy supposedly set up to secure and guarantee them like ours (may) once had been, as the U.S. Constitution does imply, there are distinctions to be made between what is in the authority of the state to implement vs. the federal government. The post-Civil War era supposedly settled the problem with 'state's rights claim over individual rights' by claiming 'national citizenship with federal authority', but, once again, as Thom Hartmann so aptly pointed out in his book, Unequal Protection, that 'national citizenship with federal authority' has been taken hostage by the instilling of the artificial entity as corporations in having 'personhood rights'. It's latest 'state victim' is the recent Supreme Court decision against Montana's century old law (made at the end of the First Gilded Age) restraining corporate involvement in political funding in favor of, once again, Citizen's United's claim that corporations have 'rights' to 'free speech' (and 'money' is how 'they talk').

So, the point of the issue is that it is NOT just 'individuals' that gain rights in this government--even as individuals are supposed to be the ones that the Declaration of Independence 'secures and guarantees' those rights for--even as the definition of 'individual rights' has been extended to both genders and all races. And, while the 14th Amendment did give the federal government the authority to supersede any state's ability to interfere with the rights of its 'national citizens' as 'individuals', the premises of such 'rights' have been used more in the courts to have the federal authority to protect corporate interests (as if protecting 'personhood rights'). The Supreme Court did that in the First Gilded Age by knocking down all the state laws that favored worker benefits in claiming the un-Constitutionality of government 'interfering with contracts'--and the present Supreme Court in what I see as the Second Gilded Age is, once again, using federal authority more to protect the corporate 'freedom' to influence elections with their 'speech' of 'money' even if that is against one state's century old law against it (from the First Gilded Age).

With that decision against Montana's law, the 'circle' between the two Gilded Ages is now complete as the judiciary branch closes all semblances of states acting against corporations for the interest of its own citizens as if the corporations' right for 'federal authority protection' just as it were a 'national citizen' with 'personhood rights' would indicate.....and, so, how could any 'state' retaliate against that, right?

A state wanting to leave the union has nothing to do with corporations or corporate person hood rights. It has to do with a state wanting to leave an unjust or what it thinks is an unjust union.

Leaving the union is not an act of war. An act of war is agressive in nature. Say attack canada for no reason is an act of war. Leaving the union is leaving the union.

One of the really weird ironies of politics these days is the huge divergence between what the American people actually want and what the radical right-wingers in Washington actually do. You won’t hear this on Fox So-Called News, but right now the American people are as progressive as they ever have been.